Yes! It was an excellent debate. Wright debated like a Clarkian!
The atheist's response was very good too. He did his research and went after the Van Til/Bahnsen style of presuppositionalism. However, his complaints were mainly physiological, rather than logical. But it was refreshing to hear from an atheist who knew (fairly well) the type of arguments he might expect from a presuppositionalist.
Ironically, the points he contended against, were not the points made by Wright. Wright avoided some of the weaker Bahnsen arguments (specifically the TAG), and stressed the necessity for all world-views to start somewhere - specifically with the axioms or presuppositions needed to develop your view.
Wright also showed that the Christian world-view was fully coherent, comprehensive, and able to produce objective moral standards.
Both Write and Tudico agreed that Atheism was not a world-view.
Tudico complained about the harsh treatment received by presuppositionalists. He quoted some presuppositionalist basically saying the unbelievers were incapable of being rational or able to understand Christianity. (At lest one Bahnsen quote given.) One can understand why this was an "issue" for the atheist. However, this also was not a point argued by Write.
All of Tudico's complaints were reasonable, even if none were defeaters of Christianity. He noted coherentism did not prove a correct world-view. He also said that there were many none-Christian ethical theories that produced objective moral standards. He was right on both counts. But Wright never claimed coherentism proved truth, and the term "objective" has a specific frame of reference in ethical theory, that misses the point of the objection of the Christian.
I could go on and on, but don't have time.
Overall, it was an excellent debate. Wright was not as skilled as Bahnsen, but his arguments were generally stronger. Tudico did better than other atheist I've heard, simply by having done his homework and being prepared. Tudico was perhaps a better preacher than Wright. Most of Wright's positions were never directly challenged - simply because Tudico agreed in principle on many of them.
Therefore, I think Wright very successfully defended the affirmative position to the question "Can Christianity Be Defended?"